Whirlwind vs Me 109 during B of B

[JasonC]

I don't think the 110 was particularly slow compared to the Spit, or especially the Hurricane. In fact it appears to have had a slight speed advantage over the latter. I think it's major drawbacks were poor rate of roll, and poor acceleration from cruise to combat speeds. These fighters just couldn't afford to tool around all day at max chat. To extend your point in a different way, it's not necessarily just speed either that's the determining factor! Lots of 'fuzzies' in the mix.

Edited March 21, 2013 by JasonC

[MilneBay]

I don't think the 110 was particularly slow compared to the Spit, or especially the Hurricane. I think it's major disadvantages were poor acceleration from cruise to combat speeds (maybe 'slow' in a different way), and poor rate of roll.

The problem is that any "fighter" that has to lug a passenger around i.e. the rear gunner, or in the case of the Fairey Fulmar and Firefly (idiotic ideas) isn't a fighter for the rather specialised job that fighters in the Battle of Britain needed. If you extrapolate to the later years it would be like North American designing a "fighter" with a rear gunner that would fly all the way to Berlin - totally useless and a waste of two crew members. All the 110 could do if challenged by Hurricanes or Spitfires was fly around in ever decreasing circles until it flew up its own bottom - a fate thoroughly deserved I might add.

[Giorgio N]

Agree 100% with Work in Progress ! There are many examples that can be mentioned:

Starting with the Bf.110, the type scored several victories over Poland against much more manouverable adversaries simply employing the boom and zoom technique. These adversaries were aircrafts that while having a very good turn rate were also quite slow and therefore could do little to avoid the attacks from the Zerstorers.

Another example of bad decisions: the Italian Air Force was a strong believer in the turning fight as the most important type of air combat, a belief that was deeply rooted in the mind of the fighter pilots. The experiences in the Spanish civil war seemed to show again that it was the way to go, as the very manuverable CR.32 held its own very well against potentially better fighters. However the experiences of that war were totally misread and the early WW2 Italian fighters found themselves very often at a disadvantage against any adversary with a speed advantage.

As the war progressed the Air Force and the industry moved completely from the idea of having the most manouverable fighter and the latest WW2 fighters were much closer to the boom and zoom type of fighter. This became even more important when the heavy bombers appeared in the Italian sky: against these, good speed, acceleration and plenty of engine power are most important things

[Work In Progress]

The Japanese also believed it was all about turning performance, at least during the first few years of their air war, and suffered as a result against the US. Eventually they accepted that they had to go down much the same route as you describe for the Italians, and for much the same reasons.

[gingerbob]

Responding to the above, first (hopefully someone won't sneak in):

It wasn't ALL about turning performance, though there's some truth to that. But it was also a decision to sacrifice some qualities (protection, perhaps "ruggedness") in order to maximize others- basically, performance/ fighting ability (not necessarily "high energy"), the philosophy that having a strong advantage in the attack will make up for some weakness in defense (or will make it so you never have to take the defensive). They're not the only ones to make that general mistake- of not thinking, "Yes, but what if that turns out not to be true?".

Fact remains that over 75% of all Whirlwinds produced were lost in action or accidents.

Something similar is true of the A-36, but does that mean it was a bad combat airplane? I think what's far more of a factor is that both only existed in limited numbers, and they were used until there weren't enough to go on using them, so of course a high proportion of the whole were lost in action or accidents.

IThese fighters [Me-110] just couldn't afford to tool around all day at max chat. To extend your point in a different way, it's not necessarily just speed either that's the determining factor! Lots of 'fuzzies' in the mix.

Very good point. The same was true of the Spit V when in an environment where Fw-190s might show up.

The problem is that any "fighter" that has to lug a passenger around i.e. the rear gunner, or in the case of the Fairey Fulmar and Firefly (idiotic ideas) isn't a fighter for the rather specialised job that fighters in the Battle of Britain needed.

For the reality of the time (when the spec was written) having that back seater maybe wasn't such an idiotic idea. Was it stupid to put a back-seater in the F-4 or F-14? Navigating over water became a whole lot easier with improved electronic technology.

The assumption that they wouldn't have to deal with land-based fighters might have been not-so-smart. As with the Zero (which is what I was primarily thinking of in my first point) the fundamental problem that we run into time and again is being too sure that your own formula is the right one, and making subsequent decisions accordingly:

"The bomber will always get through" (therefore there's no point focusing on defending against it, because it is a lost cause)

"If we can bomb them as much as they can bomb us, that'll be a deterrent" (but if it isn't, then what?)

"The high altitude precision bomber is the way to go." (What if it's cloudy?)

"A fighter can't have the range to escort bombers and compete with local interceptors" (But I thought our designers were always more clever than their designers, so shouldn't we at least try?)

and so on.

bob

Edited March 21, 2013 by gingerbob

[Giorgio N]

For the reality of the time (when the spec was written) having that back seater maybe wasn't such an idiotic idea. Was it stupid to put a back-seater in the F-4 or F-14? Navigating over water became a whole lot easier with improved electronic technology.

The difference between the Phantom and the Fulmar is that the former had an extra crew member but also twice the power of the contemporary single seat fighters while the Fulmar had a crew of two but the same power of the contemporary fighters.

But yes, it made sense back then to have an extra crew member to work the navigation duties, although the FAA was alone in following this philosophy.

[JohnT]

Well I know it's all hypothetical but replace the awful useless Defiant with a couple of squadrons of Whirlwinds as pure bomber destroyers - 4x20 mm cannon in a head on attack would be be pretty damn devastating to a bomber and maintain the number of Hurricane and Spitfire squadrons. That would keep the same balance as existed with Spitfires, Hurricanes and Defiants.

Oddly the "useless Defiant" had a better air v air history than the whirlwind and when used in its intended role with the right tactics was reasonably effective

It also had a career in second line duties which the whirlwind never had as she was thought to be unsuitable in that respect

[The wooksta V2.0]

Another vote in favour of the Defiant. A read through "The Turret Fighters" by Alec Brew is surprisingly illuminating.

[Selwyn]

Hi

could we have some comparism figures for losses for other aircraft to compare ?

i.e. spitfire hurricane etc...

cheers

Jerry

Going down this statistics route doesn't prove much.

If you look over the statistics of the best kill to loss ratio in WW2 you will find that the winner is that noted masterpiece of fighter hardware the Brewster Buffalo!

In arial combat (not necessarily dogfighting) it is the responsibility of the professional fighter pilot to learn the strengths and weaknesses of his aeroplane, and if possible that of his opponents mount, and use that knowledge to his advantage.

The pilot has to seize the initiative. If his opponent can turn better - don't get into a turning fight! If you are faster use that to your advantage, If you find yourself in a difficult position and the other guy has the initiative use this performance knowledge to disengage safely and if you can re engage to your rules,your advantage.

Read Randy Cunninghams account of flying the big heavy F4 against the nippy Mig 17 in Vietnam, He was a master of his aircraft,he knew what the F4 did well, and didn't do well. He also knew what the Mig 17 did well an couldn't do. Result? he went home - the Mig pilot didn't! And lets face it, thats what it's all about in the end isn't it?

Selwyn

[Work In Progress]

Another vote in favour of the Defiant. A read through "The Turret Fighters" by Alec Brew is surprisingly illuminating.

The Defiant also has a sneaky advantage if it does come up against a boom-and-zoom type - unlike a sluggish fighter with forward-facing armament, it can zap its opponent when he goes vertical.

I have a strong affection for the Defiant, which like the Battle falls into the category of types which were good aeroplanes, judged purely as flying machines, whatever their strengths and weaknesses as weapons. So does the Buffalo, come to that.

[JohnT]

General comment on the High energy pass followed by a quick stab in the back before they know you are there method of aerial fighting as opposed to the turning dogfight - I think that the Red Baron Von Richtofen very much practised the former stalk and kill method rather than tussling around the sky first.

I suspect an analysis of the high scorers in all combats might show that they favoured height and speed with surprise over a turning fight almost invariably. On the other hand if turning is all you got you had better use it well.

This has turned into an interesting discussion and what I take from it is that looking at the Whirlwind its difficult to see one single thing that caused her to be "second rated". I have come to believe that the aircraft failed due to the cumulative effect of a number of factors. Engine reliability, lack of quantity production facilities for both airframes and the type requiring twice the engines it alternatives do, the availability of other types in quantity that were just as good if not better, vulnerability to defensive bomber fire, poor altitude performance, a bomber destroyer with no bombers to shoot at but lots of single seat fighters around and an emerging 190 threat. She was just in the wrong place at the wrong time really.

Edited March 21, 2013 by JohnT

[Edgar]

Dismissing the Defiant as "useless," and harshly criticising the Whirlwind does the manufacturers a massive disservice, since they supplied what they were asked for, and that was aircraft which could deal with (unescorted) bombers. If you look at the attack methods, for the Defiant (available in files in Kew,) they're envisaged as only having bombers to attack.

Of course, it's then easy to go for the Air Ministry for not foreseeing the bombers being escorted by fast single-engined fighters, but that means that they should have foreseen that France would be defeated, and who, in the 1930s, would have given that serious consideration? When Dowding was demanding armour, for his Spitfire pilots, Sholto-Douglas at first fiercely opposed it, since "there was nothing in the air faster than the Spitfire, so an enemy could only get behind the pilot if he wasn't paying attention."

One of the biggest stumbling-blocks, in researching old aircraft, is the usual 20/20 hindsight; it's absolutely essential (but extremely difficult) to put yourself back into those days, with the knowledge available at that time, and think things through from there, which will make things a lot clearer.

Edgar

[Truro Model Builder]

The Defiant also has a sneaky advantage if it does come up against a boom-and-zoom type - unlike a sluggish fighter with forward-facing armament, it can zap its opponent when he goes vertical.

I have a strong affection for the Defiant, which like the Battle falls into the category of types which were good aeroplanes, judged purely as flying machines, whatever their strengths and weaknesses as weapons. So does the Buffalo, come to that.

The Buffalo has a very poor reputation as most of the time it was flying against the Zero. The Finns made very good use of it against the Soviets.

[MilneBay]

We must never fall into the trap of excusing a bad design through 20/20 hindsight which appears to be what is happening regarding assessment of the Defiant and silly ideas like the Fulmar and Firefly. Yes they were designed to meet a specification however that does not excuse the simple fact that the specification itself was badly thought out and framed. The Defiant found some use in other roles, it was a pioneering radar equipped night fighter but that's all and its secondary roles in ASR and in target towing while of use are scarcely what a front line fighter is designed to do. Other more forward thinking navies than the RN managed to equip themselves with quite excellent single seat fighters with the range and armament to be of first class value - while the Fulmar and Firefly were not fighters unless they found a prey possessing markedly less performance than they did. That characteristic is not something to set as a performance goal for any pure fighter. An acceptable combat aircraft should not be a death trap for its crew and just because it meets a official specification that has the character of a death trap inadvertently built into it does not make it any the less a death trap. That isn't 20/20 hindsight at work, that is what the Defiant operators discovered very quickly after the Luftwaffe recognised its inbuilt weaknesses - and as I said just because it found other uses doesn't excuse the simple fact that it was not capable of being a fighter in the sense required in the Battle of Britain, the task for which its specification was written. That other death trap the awful Battle found other uses - most of which were just to keep production lines at factories ticking over until those factories could start producing other more combat worthy aircraft. That probably was of little solace to the crews who had the task of actually trying to use them in combat. It served as a trainer simply because there were so many of them made some use had to be found for them.

But the subject of the thread is the hypothetical use of the Whirlwind in the Battle of Britain and it would have made a very effective head on attack bomber destroyer with that cluster of 20mm cannon making mincemeat of the Luftwaffe crews all bunched up in the front of their aircraft. A couple of squadrons of those flying dive and zoom interceptions coupled with the Hurricane and Spitfire in their existing historic roles well might have seen an earlier finish to the Battle of Britain.

[Arachnid]

The Buffalo has a very poor reputation as most of the time it was flying against the Zero. The Finns made very good use of it against the Soviets.

Wasn't that true about the Airacobra also, Didn't the soviets use them with considerable success?

Edited March 22, 2013 by hawker

[oz rb fan]

isnt that the biggest problem with the whirlwind?...it was before it's time...turning dog fights were out..but she didnt have the speed or the altitude to go far beyond 1941 without becoming a train attacker!!lived for 3 years after production finished....but never found a real niche!! always with out a home...and yet mr dehavilland built a hornet and showed what she could have been.....but for merlins!!!!!!!!!!...petter wanted them...and the whirly may have been better for them...but the hornet would have never existed with out them!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Giorgio N]

he Merlin version used by the Hornets had twice the power of the ones available at the beginning of the war, and an earlier aircraft would have not been much lighter. Halve the power and keep the same weight, are we sure the flight characteristics would have been the same ? Even if the Hornet was a very aircraft in 1946, would a similar aircraft had been as good in 1940 ?

Seems to me that the only twin engined fighter capable of proving itself was the Lightning, even if this was not found to be good enough in Europe against the German types. The Hornet might have been another exception, but when it entered service the jet fighters were already an opponent too strong even for the Hornet

[oz rb fan]

yep GiorgioN...but if petter got his way the whirlwind would have dad this power(not the poor 650 hp of the peregrine )...so power ands altitiude....400mph twin in 1940/41!!!!!!

two stage whirlly...450 mph...maybe...dowding hated it..westlands couldnt produce the numbers......and yet produced plenty of spit's....unfortinatly she was always going to be a passing light...what could have been....but never was...too early and too late!!

the hornet's advantage...range...jets couldnt go that far or be trusted to last that long...a near 500mph fighter that could fight and hit hard....hhmmma two stege whilwind could have been done two or three years earlier!!!!!..p38 proved what a propper twin could do!!

btw a hornet had twice the power of an early merlin..,........close to three times a peregrine...a whirlwind with 50% more power and real super charger's..may have been not much better thanwhat was avaiible ...but if the brass had seen what the pilots had seen......the whirlwind may have just had a real chance!!!!!!!!!!!!

[gingerbob]

Just a reminder that the bottom line is that the Whirlwind was a lame-duck before it even entered series production- there just wasn't justification to keep that airframe or its engines, which had no other dedicated application, in the very high-pressure production programme when the crisis began to hit. The only reason any quantity at all was ordered was to please Petter/Westland.

Now HAD Westland been prompt about development and construction of the prototype, so that it was available to show its potential early enough, that might have given time to back the Peregrine so that it too could be "polished", and to back the Whirlwind so that they COULD produce a useful quantity.

bob

Edited March 23, 2013 by gingerbob

[Andrew Jones]

As one of my favourite aircraft I always feel the Whirlwind has been short changed over the years, yes Westland could have been prompter in the stages of developement , if RR hadn't dropped the Peregrine, then what a difference that would have made. With only 114 aircraft produced there were barely enough to allow for the equipment of the two squadrons 137 and 263 , that used them , three Whirlwinds briefly served with 25 sqd.

The pilots and ground crew loved the Whirlwind ,much has been said about the losses but other aircraft that operated in the offensive role carried out by the Whirlwind suffered similar if not greater losses , the twin engines gave Whirlwinds a better chance of getting back than single engined fighters. They were limited to under 15,000 ft by their Peregrine engines due to the lack of developement . but low down they had few equals.

263 squadrons ORB for August 1941 states " August has been mensis memorablis , the Whirlwind has at last been vindicated and justified, having shown that it is an admirable machine for ground strafing and is also a match for Me 109's ."

Later comes " The year 1941 had finished sucessfully and the Whirlwind has vindicated itself, seven Whirlwinds had been shot down or lost in operations and 61 enemy aircraft destroyed or damaged in air combat ".

If you can get a copy of " Whirlwind" by Victor Bingham published by Airlife, it is well worth the read, in a chapter titled " Retrospect or Post Mortem the folllowing appears,

" In retrospect , it is worth recalling that in April and May 1942 the operational hours flown by 263 Squadron were consistently the highest in the Group, and on more than one occasion the squadron was the only one to get airborne under bad weather conditions.

The Whirlwinds advanced design was also the creator of any failures it suffered , yet it had twin engine safety, a greater range than either the standard Hurricane or Spitfire, it did not suffer from the structural failure rate of either the Typhoon or the Mosquito, and was nicer and lighter on the controls than practically all fighter aircraft of the period."

If the Whirlwind could have surmounted the various difficulties surrounding it's developement and production and appeared in time for the Battle of Britain then I feel it could have made a great difference both as a bomber destroyer and an equal to the Me 109.

Andrew

Edited March 22, 2013 by Andrew Jones

[JohnT]

263 squadrons ORB for August 1941 states " August has been mensis memorablis , the Whirlwind has at last been vindicated and justified, having shown that it is an admirable machine for ground strafing and is also a match for Me 109's ."

Later comes " The year 1941 had finished sucessfully and the Whirlwind has vindicated itself, seven Whirlwinds had been shot down or lost in operations and 61 enemy aircraft destroyed or damaged in air combat ".

Andrew

Andrew

the Allied Wings publication gives the Whirlwind only a very few air to air kills - see my posting above which quotes the numbers from that source. It does not square with the comments on 263 ORB, not even close. Perhaps the ORB overstates the results due to the usual overclaiming by pilots in the understandable confusion of the fog of war?

[Stonar]

With 655 victories going to 30 Squadrons, at 22.5 per Squadron, while 19 Spitfire Squadrons got 530, at 28 per Squadron, the difference really isn't worth arguing about, but I'd say we have vindication of the old saying, "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics."

Edgar

I'm a big fan of the Hurricane but those statistics are themselves misleading. 30 and 19 seem to be an approximate average for the total number of Spitfire and Hurricane squadrons in Fighter Command,between July and September. More relevant would surely be the relative numbers in 11 Group during the battle

14/7/40 11 Group had 12 Hurricane and 7 Spitfire squadrons

1/9/40 this was 14 and 6 respectively.

Then there is the uncomfortable truth that from May to November 61.7% of Hurricanes were lost as opposed to 38.3% of Spitfires.That might be slightly weighted by pre-Dunkirk Hurricane losses in France (the figures go from 10/5) but I still I know,despite my fondness for the Hurricane,which I'd rather be in

Cheers

Steve

[SkippyBing]

while the Fulmar and Firefly were not fighters unless they found a prey possessing markedly less performance than they did.

That would be the Fulmar that was the FAA's highest scoring type and the Firefly that could out turn the Zero and shot down Hyabusa?

[Andrew Jones]

Andrew

the Allied Wings publication gives the Whirlwind only a very few air to air kills - see my posting above which quotes the numbers from that source. It does not square with the comments on 263 ORB, not even close. Perhaps the ORB overstates the results due to the usual overclaiming by pilots in the understandable confusion of the fog of war?

Quite possibly so, but it does show that 263 sqd was more than happy with the Whirlwind as a fighter.

Andrew

[mrvr6]

That would be the Fulmar that was the FAA's highest scoring type and the Firefly that could out turn the Zero and shot down Hyabusa?

fulmer = best of a bad bunch?

the hurricane could outturn pretty much everything but that didnt make it the best thing in the air